25 U.S.C. § 1755

Omitted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

[omitted]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1986–2006 · leading case: State v. Spears, 647 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Spears, 647 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 16× “5 The defendant claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1983 6 (Settlement Act) effected a complete grant of criminal jurisdiction over the Mashantucket Pequot reservation to the state in that it (1) found that…”

Charles v. Charles, 701 A.2d 650 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 3× “Congress provided in § 6 of the Settlement Act; 25 U.S.C. § 1755 ; that “[notwithstanding the provision relating to a special election in section 406 of the Act of April 11, 1968 ( 82 Stat.”

State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “Section 6 of the Settlement Act, which is codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1755 , provides: “state jurisdiction over reservation.”

Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1755 . This section contains the only reference to Indian country in the settlement act.”

State v. Sebastian, 701 A.2d 13 (Conn. 1997). “25 U.S.C. §§ 1755 , 1775d. Although there has been no single, standardized definition of Indian encompassing all federal criminal statutes; see R.”

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. McGuigan, 626 F. Supp. 245 (D. Conn. 1986). “See Public Law 98-134, § 6 , 25 U.S.C. § 1755 . That grant is claimed to be self-executing as exempt from the special election requirements of 25 U.”

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). “The Settlement Act provides expressly that Connecticut retains civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Tribe’s reservation, see 25 U.S.C. § 1755 , while non-settlement lands taken into trust would, they argue, be immune *91 from state jurisdiction.”

State of Conn. Ex Rel. Blumenthal v. Babbitt, 26 F. Supp. 2d 397 (D. Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “11 The Act confirmed the status of the Tribe’s reservation as “Indian country,” 25 U.S.C. § 1755 , and affirmed that a federal restraint against alienation pursuant to the Noninter-course Act, 25 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.